1 Jury, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 41 
engaged in the agency business ; consequently under existing circumstances we may 
never hope to get reliable information. I know for a fact that one shipment of butter 
was supposed to have arrived in London in inferior condition—paragraphs appeared in 
the papers that prices were low, 86s. to 90s. per cwt.'; whereas it is a fact that 98s. 
and 102s. were realised for this consignment of supposed inferior butter. In the face 
of this, how can confidence be placed in the reports sent from London? I do not mean 
to infer that the agents here orin London are dishonest; but I do maintain that human 
nature has not altered, and it is every man’s ambition in this world to make as much 
money as he can and in as short a period as possible. ‘Too much importance cannot be 
attached to building up a reputation for our goods in the London market, but I am 
afraid that we are not quite on the right lines just yet. ‘The English buyers are 
allowed to fix the prices for Australian butter, whereas the Danish producers fix their 
own prices. My opinion, although opposed by the proprietary people, is that the 
Government should have control over the exports of dairy produce. The agents here 
take the Government brand as a guarantee that the quality of the butter is good, and 
make advances upon no other conditions. I am quite satisfied in my mind that the 
buyers in England consider the brand a guarantee for good quality, knowing that no 
Government would tolerate inferior goods bearing a first-class brand. I could say a 
lot on this subject, but will leave the matter to be thrashed out by those present. he 
very great importance of care and cleanliness in handling milk cannot be too deeply 
impressed upon the dairymen of this colony—indeed, our whole reputation hinges 
upon this all-important matter, and until compulsory inspection is adopted we may 
always expect to have a certain amount of inferior butter on the market. The 
action of one dairyman supplying milk to a factory who disregards cleanliness 
is sufficient to destroy all the efforts of his more careful neighbours, and 
prevents the factory from turning out a good article. I think itis very much to be 
deplored that there is not an Act of Parliament whereby inspectors could be em- 
powered to have control over all sources of milk supply. Under the Public Health 
Act of 1896, power is given to the local authorities, but I have never known an 
instance in country districts where the Act was put into force; consequently the Act 
is useless to the large manufacturers—indeed, under the present sources of milk 
supply, the manufacturers are at the mercy of the suppliers, and one dirty, careless 
supplier may contaminate the milk supplied by all others. No article of food is so 
susceptible to the bad odours, or so absorbent, as milk; and the filthier the conditions and 
surroundings of the sources of milk supply, the more favourable the home for these 
impure bacteria. During my travels in this colony, I have seen milk supplied to 
factories from diseased cows, in many casesin such a condition that the milk was unfit 
for human consumption, and no means other than compulsion would change such 
people from their dirty habits. If we wish to uphold a reputation for our goods in 
the home market, we must induce or compel the milk-suppliers to adopt a thorough 
system of cleanliness and aeration of milk. Immediately the milk is drawn from the 
cow, and especially while it retains the animal heat, it absorbs all sorts of impure 
bacteria that may be in the milking-vards and outhouses, which cause rapid fermenta- 
tion and render the milk unfit for conversion into a good article. Milk-coolers are 
so cheap that no milk-supplier should be without one, and all milk should be cooled 
and aerated immediately it is drawn from the cow, and should be carried out into a 
ure atmosphere, far away from milking-yards, piggeries, and other bad-smelling out- 
houses. By adopting this thorough system of aeration the quality of the milk is much 
improved, especially as foul gases and the animal odour are expelled, which otherwise 
would be carried away into the cheese and butter. This information, and a great 
deal more, may be obtained from every jpn Mel on ‘‘ Dairying” issued by the 
Agricultural Department; consequently there is no need for me to go into the 
matter in detail, or for any farmer to plead ignorance, for copies van be had 
on application. I have simply brought the subject up for discussion. I am 
a great believer in the above process for butter-making, and thoroughly believe 
that all milk for household purposes should be pasteurised, for by this process the 
pathozenic germs are destroyed, and the milk is freed from infectious organisms. 
‘There are many reasons why the above process could not be successfully carried out 
at our butter factories or at our creameries. The greatest difficulty to my mind is the 
want of means for cooling, and in most cases the cream would be too ripe to undergo 
the process by the time it reached the factory. Another drawback is the want of a 
perfect pasteurising plant, and at present I know of none on the market: suitable for 
the purpose. In Denmark nearly every factory has adopted the process, but I believe 
the filthy condition of the yards and the close conhuement of the dairy cattle 
necessitate their doing so. Tuberculosis and other diseases among dairy cattle are 
wisely occupying the attention of scientific men, as well as many others engaged in 
stock pursuits. Tuberculosis is not a new disease, but of late years, since the germ 
of disease was first identified by Professor Koch, greater interest has been taken in 
